Meddaugh v. LiveWatch Security LLC

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING CASE PURSUANT TO STIPULATION. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 1/19/2016. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2016)

1
2
3
4
5

ERIC A. GROVER (SBN 136080)
[e-mail]
KELLER GROVER LLP
1965 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94103
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ELIZABETH MEDDAUGH

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

FREDERICK W. KOSMO, JR. (SBN 138036)
[e-mail]
JOCELYN D. HANNAH (SBN 224666)
[e-mail]
WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP
550 West C Street, Suite 1050
San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
LIVEWATCH SECURITY, LLC

13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16
17
18
19

ELIZABETH MEDDAUGH, individually
and on behalf of a class similarly situated
individuals,
Plaintiff,

20
21
22
23

Case No. 16-cv-00131-MEJ
JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
AND ORDER
FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)

v.
LIVEWATCH SECURITY, LLC,
Defendant.

24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER

CASE NO. 16-CV-00131

1
2
3
4

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff ELIZABETH
MEDDAUGH (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant LIVEWATCH SECURITY, LLC (“Defendant”), by
and through their respective undersigned counsel, hereby submit this Joint Stipulation of
Dismissal and [Proposed] Order, and stipulate and agree as follows:

5
6
7
8

WHEREAS, on November 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed an alleged putative class action
complaint against Defendant asserting claims of unlawful Short Message Service texting to
Plaintiff and putative class members in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.

9

WHEREAS, Defendant removed the action on January 8, 2016.

10
11

WHEREAS, Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss this entire civil lawsuit, with prejudice as to
her individual claims and without prejudice as to the alleged putative class action claims.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

WHEREAS, Plaintiff has not moved for class certification, and a class has not been
certified by the Court. The Parties’ stipulated dismissal of this action does not resolve the claims,
issues, or defenses of any putative or certified class. Under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, where a class has not been certified, Court approval is not required for dismissal.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) (court approval only required for dismissal of “the claims, issues, or
defenses of a certified class”) (emphasis added); see also Advisory Committee Notes on 2003
Amendments to Rule 23, Subdivision (e), Paragraph (1) (“The new rule requires [court] approval
only if the claims, issues or defenses of a certified class are resolved by . . . voluntary dismissal.”)
(emphasis added).

21
22
23
24
25
26

WHEREAS, the Parties are not aware of any member of the alleged putative class who, in
reliance upon this action or otherwise, has refrained from bringing a claim identical or similar to
any of the claims in this action or who might be prejudiced by dismissal of this action by the
Court.
For the reasons set forth above and pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the Parties hereby jointly Stipulate to the dismissal with prejudice of

27
28
JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER

1

CASE NO. 16-CV-00131

1
2

Plaintiff’s individual claims and the dismissal without prejudice of the alleged class action claims
and request that the Court terminate all proceedings in this action.

3
4
5
6
7

The Parties shall bear their own costs and fees associated with this action and the
dismissal.
IT IS SO STIPULATED
Dated: January 15, 2016

KELLER GROVER LLP

8
9
By: /s/ Eric A. Grover
Eric A. Grover
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ELIZABETH MEDDAUGH

10
11
12
13

Dated: January 15, 2016

WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP

14
By: /s/ Frederick W. Kosmo, Jr.____
Frederick W. Kosmo, Jr.
Attorneys for Defendant
LIVEWATCH SECURITY, LLC

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER

2

CASE NO. 16-CV-00131

ORDER

1

This action is dismissed in its entirety pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).

2

Plaintiff

3

Meddaugh’s individual claims are dismissed with prejudice, and the claims of the putative class

4

members are dismissed without prejudice.

5

certification, a class has not been certified by the Court, and this dismissal does not resolve the

6

claims, issues, or defenses of any putative or certified class. Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal

7

Rules of Civil Procedure, where a class has not been certified, Court approval is not required for

8

dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e); see also Advisory Committee Notes on 2003 Amendments to

9

Rule 23, Subdivision (e), Paragraph (1). The Court hereby terminates all proceedings in this

10
11

Plaintiff Meddaugh has not moved for class

action.
The Parties shall bear their own costs and fees associated with this action and the

12

dismissal.

13

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

January 19, 2016
Dated: _______________________

_
HON. MARIA ELENA JAMES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER

3

CASE NO. 16-CV-00131